The Nitty Gritty of Language

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:29 am

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote: For example, if absolutely every human being believes the earth is the center of the Universe, then there is no one human being open to this "truth" being anything else - the real Truth or 'what it actually is'. However, if there is just one human being who does not believe this agreed upon and so called "truth or fact" wholeheartedly, and thus they are remaining open, then they are able to learn more and newer knowledge.
Many would say the problem is that 'the earth being the centre of the universe' is neither true nor false, since 'the centre' has no meaning in itself, it is a relative term. If it is false, it isn't because some other location is the true centre, but because from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre. This is seen as a general problem with all claims to objective knowledge - all the words we use will necessarily reflect our position as subjective observers.
The whole point of my example in showing 'what it actually is' IS NOT whether the earth is the center of the Universe or not, but whether human beings are open to finding whether the earth is the center of the Universe or not. This was NEVER about the situations.

'What "it" [absolutely anything] actually is' is not found, but is continually discovered.

The ONLY WAY to know 'what it actually is' is done by always remaining completely open to finding IT, which is the Truth of absolutely any and every thing. The being and staying open is the ONLY WAY to have and obtain a completely objective viewpoint because if you are open, that is no beliefs and no assuming, and emotion free, that is no biases, then you are not looking from a subjective viewpoint you are looking and seeing from a objective viewpoint.

You said, "... from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre." Therefore, you already know from an objective viewpoint that 'what it actually is' IS nowhere is the centre of the Universe. Now, if you start to believe that is true, then you are not open anymore. And, if you are not open, then you will NOT be able to discover what the real and ultimate Truth is.

By the way some scientists, like stephen hawking's are beginning to say that the centre of the Universe is right under our noses, which in a way does place the earth, when we are on it, at fairly close to the centre of the Universe. So, if the centre of the Universe is not in agreement then surely at least one of those differing views are coming from a subjective viewpoint. You say, nowhere is the centre of the Universe, others say different. So, how do you know from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre?

Again, none of this is about where the centre of the Universe actualy IS, (although that is extremely easy to work out), what this is all about is how open a human being is. If one is completely open and emotion free, then, I propose, they can and will be looking from a completely objective viewpoint. The opposite is also true, to Me, that if a human being is in any way not open or looking with biased views, then they looking from a subjective viewpoint. To KNOW whether you are looking from a objective viewpoint or from a subjective viewpoint is done by knowing that the answers you are arriving at could be in agreement with and by everyone, or just a select few. If Everyone could and would be in agreement as One, then you have and are looking from an objective viewpoint. If, however, the opposite is true and only a select few could and would be in agreement, then you have been or are looking from a subjective viewpoint.

Did you notice that to you the center of the Universe has no meaning in itself because you believe nowhere is the centre of the Universe?

And, did you also notice that this belief is effecting the way you look at this subject and has effected the way you have looked at what I wrote previously?

You have been looking at this subjectively, and not objectively.

The reason the centre of the Universe has no meaning in itself, to you, is because 'nowhere' by definition has no meaning.

Maybe an easier way to learn how to know how to look from a truly objective viewpoint instead of from a subjective viewpoint is to first discover or learn how the Mind and the brain actually works. But for this to take place you first need to discover or learn what the Mind actually is. But for this to take place you first need to be open and honest to discover or learn how you work. But for this to take place you first need to be honest about how you do wrong to discover or learn WHY you do everything you do. But for this to take place you first need to be truly honest about what wrong you yourself do, and seriously seek to change those ways. A huge ask I know. Also, why human beings do not do this is totally understandable in this "world" where shame, ridicule, and punishment is very common practice and is what is actually placed onto those who do seek to change their "wrong" ways, whatever that may be.
Londoner wrote:I asked you if you could give an example of 'some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'.
What I understand completely objectively is 'If human beings are not open, then they will not continue learning 'what the Truth actually is', that is 'what it actually is'. What the 'it' is in 'what it actually is' IS if you are not open, then you will not learn what the 'it' IS.
Londoner wrote:You did not give an example, but instead you wrote about situations where humans are - or are not- open to new knowledge. Surely that contradicts the claim we can have such knowledge?
The situations I was using were examples I were giving, which obviously you did not understand, they were to show that if and when you are open, then you can have such knowledge, AND, if and when you are NOT open, then you can NOT have such knowledge.

One such knowledge being that, 'If and when you are open, then you can obtain True knowledge.'

Unless of course if you do not agree that being open is how we find truer and further knowledge and you want to argue that, 'If being, what is generally called, open-minded is not the best and easiest way to learn newer or truer knowledge', and you can do that successfully, then I will happily admit that we, you and I, can not know 'what it actually is' and that we, you and I, can not look from an objective viewpoint.

But just to make this clear I will still NOT believe this to be true, because if I did, then I would not be open to newer and further Truth.
Londoner wrote: Suppose you did give an example of 'what actually is'. How would you know that it was really objective knowledge, and not that you had simply closed your mind to any new knowledge?
I will provide this example of 'what actually is', 'Being open, I think, is the best way to discover or learn True knowledge'. How do I know that this example is really objective knowledge IS because I think everyone could and would agree with it AND because I used the words 'I think' in the example, which by definition means I do NOT believe it is true knowledge, I only think it is true knowledge. If I only think it is true, then I am therefore also remaining completely open to a further or newer Truth. Thus, I am simply NOT closed to any new knowledge.

(By the way there is no 'your' mind, AND, we can NOT close the Mind. But this is for another discussion much further along than we are now.)
Londoner wrote:We cannot stand outside our own heads to determine this.
Do you believe this?

Just maybe we can, with know-HOW. You will have to wait and see if it is true or not.

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:28 am

Belinda wrote:Ken wrote regarding my claim that the devil wears disguises:
But I do fully understand what the disguises are. The devil can not hide or be disguised once it is fully known for what it really is. I just wish I knew exactly how to explain all of this in easily understood succinct language. But if any One is really interested I would be more than happy to share.
That's one of my favourite tunes. Education armours people against disinformation, false claims, and partiality in commerce and politics. All of those devilish practices are mediated mainly through language.

Please share your thoughts.
If you can accept that the devil may not be an actual visible thing, then the way the devil disguises itself has been very deceptive. The devil is actually disguised and intertwined within our words and language. All words and language comes from thoughts, and the devil is within those thoughts. (Discovering how the Mind and the brain actually works brings all of this to light and shows it all for what it all actually is. But we will leave that for now.)

Obviously every adult human being does some good or right behaviors, and, also does some bad or wrong behaviors. All behaviors, however, come from thoughts. So, there must be some good or right thoughts and some bad or wrong thoughts within each and every adult human being to make them behave and misbehave the way they do. We could now just place the good or right thoughts on the "God" side of things, and, place the bad or wrong thoughts on the "devil" side of things. However, it might not be just that easy, as you said, "the devil wears disguises".

There is no actual proof that God and/or the devil are meant to be visible things, but they are said to exist. I do not think there is any reference to HOW they actually exist, so they both could exist in a non-visible sense, or in a spiritual realm, or unseeable or a not so easily recognizable state. Thoughts are exactly like that, that is they a non-visible thing. No matter how much a human body is cut up or cut into thoughts, themselves, have not yet been seen by human eyes. (By the way the MInd also in a non-visible thing and to discover or learn how the Mind and the brain work, the Mind and thoughts are not the same thing. But that is another issue.)

ALL information, disinformation and real information, ALL claims, false and true, et cetera, ALL comes from and through thoughts (or thinking) and ALL thinking comes from or within the human brain. ALL information can be passed on and through human brains from each one individual brain to another, and, from one generation of brains to another. Nothing new or enlightening there, but to Me as soon as information is believed to be true, then that is the devil itself. What is wrong is disguised in the belief that it is true.

Obviously passing on of good or God's thoughts to another is not a bad or wrong thing, but the passing on of bad or wrong thoughts to another is a wrong thing to do. To Me, passing on of disinformation and/or false claims, et cetera, through beliefs is how the devil itself, works. The devilish plan works by believing in some bad or wrong thoughts as being good or right and/or true, and then by passing those same thoughts on to others, without really ever realizing what is actually happening. For example the thought, 'We need money to live', is totally wrong information. It is a totally false claim. But when human beings start believing it is true, then they will behave like it is true. How many children are denied attention, refused being listened to and heard, as well as being neglected just because adults BELIEVE that they need to go to work to obtain more money? Then, when children witness and experience this neglect because the adults are believing they need to go to work, then that exact same wrong information is passed on, and also believed. What children experience is what they learn, and then most likely grow up teaching the same, by doing the same. If children hear no evil, or wrong, see no evil, or wrong, then they will do no evil, or wrong. Children learn from what they see and hear, or in other words experience.

Any thought could be right or wrong. But if a thought is wrong, then there is no shame in that. No human being is expected to know the truth or what is right about any and every thing. Children learn what is right and wrong in life, by what they experience. Every human being is born not consciously knowing anything, so everything they do know consciously, they have learned. Absolutely every thing, besides what is instinctively known about what is needed for survival, is learned. If a non-adult human being has learned something, that was taught to them and it is wrong, but they think or believe it is right because they have been told it is, then that human being should not be shamed, ridiculed, nor punished for that.

All bad and wrong or good and right information is obtained and is not necessarily an unnatural thing in itself. Human beings learn by their mistakes, so if they did not make any mistakes prior, then they may not have learned what they now know.

But the passing on of bad or wrong knowledge is the devil at work.

The Believing (in) some thing is the devil, itself. Beliefs, themselves, disguise what is actually True and Right.

Believing causes an absolutely closed outlook on Life, whereas, not believing and not disbelieving creates a completely open outlook. Being open reveals the Truth, whereas, being closed reveals nothing, besides the devil.

Why beliefs are the devil is because those bad or wrong thoughts, which are being disguised as being true, get passed on as Truth, which is a complete misrepresentation of what is actually true, right, and real.

If we take a biblical example, when the thoughts were deceiving eve that the fruit of the tree were good, because they were pleasing to the eye, then that deception that the apple was good, was the devil, and the thought that eve listened to and followed, which was the start of wrong doing, in the story.

The 'pleasing to the eye' or the wanting or desiring of more than they needed, was the emotion driven impulse, which is where, in the story, greed comes from. Human beings are driven by emotions, and their mis/behavior are caused by thoughts. Thoughts can be good or bad. What one does comes from which thoughts they listen to.

When human beings say that the devil made me do it. They do not literally mean the devil, itself, made them do it. What they really mean is they listened to the bad or wrong thoughts, inside their head or from the brain, and they followed that instead of following what is good or right.

How to distinguish between what are, for ease of language, 'God' thoughts and 'devil' thoughts is done by being able to distinguish whether the thought is coming from one's own personal assumptions, beliefs, or biases, or, if it is coming from what would be agreed upon and accepted by absolutely every One.

I really have no idea how good or bad I shared these thoughts. But I think the best and easiest way to understand what I am trying to convey is to just remain open, be inquisitive, and ask Me as many clarifying questions as you like. The more you ask and the more challenging they are the more I actually enjoy answering them. So, if you really are interested, then ask away.

Belinda
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Belinda » Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:27 am

Ken wrote:
If you can accept that the devil may not be an actual visible thing, then the way the devil disguises itself has been very deceptive. The devil is actually disguised and intertwined within our words and language. All words and language comes from thoughts, and the devil is within those thoughts. (Discovering how the Mind and the brain actually works brings all of this to light and shows it all for what it all actually is. But we will leave that for now.)

Thoughts can be disciplined by insight into one's own reactions. Reason helps to provide insight so that thoughts are more reflective and less impulsive.

Ken, your thoughts on believing are similar to mine especially the important bit about how what I'd call certainty is stultifying.

I interpret the expulsion from Eden story a little differently from you. I think that man is such that he must choose, think, and reason for himself now that, having been expelled from Eden so to speak, he has so much more choice than have inanimate things .The trickster bedevils all our choices and interpretations, and reason compounded with kindness is our defence against tricks.It doesn't always work ; as most of us know with the best of intentions things go wrong.

Trickster- language seduces because of human weakness and ignorance. Often what we want to hear is what the trickster says in seductive language and this is why I recommend insight into our own fallibility and ,same as you, not to be so attached to certainty as to have fixed beliefs.

Londoner
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Londoner » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:54 pm

ken wrote:
You said, "... from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre." Therefore, you already know from an objective viewpoint that 'what it actually is' IS nowhere is the centre of the Universe. Now, if you start to believe that is true, then you are not open anymore. And, if you are not open, then you will NOT be able to discover what the real and ultimate Truth is.
I cannot be open to things which are self-contradictory, for example 'the truth is false' or 'the universe is not the universe'. I cannot be open to them, not because they are untrue but because there is nothing to be open to; if I say such things I have not said anything.

The problem with 'the centre' is that it is incomplete. You cannot have 'the centre' on its own; it has to be linked to an object. The words 'the universe' appear to describe an object, but really stand for 'everything', and everything is not the name of an object. If we gave 'the universe' a particular meaning, like 'the solar system' then we could say what the centre was, but without that meaning we cannot answer where 'the centre' is because we have not formulated the question.
By the way some scientists, like stephen hawking's are beginning to say that the centre of the Universe is right under our noses, which in a way does place the earth, when we are on it, at fairly close to the centre of the Universe. So, if the centre of the Universe is not in agreement then surely at least one of those differing views are coming from a subjective viewpoint. You say, nowhere is the centre of the Universe, others say different. So, how do you know from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre?
I think you may misunderstand him, but as I say, we can describe something as the centre of the universe but the answer would depend on what we understood by 'the universe'. For example, since everything happens spatially relative to me, then I can say 'I am the centre of the universe', but that would not be true for you, nor would it be useful if we were doing physics.
Did you notice that to you the center of the Universe has no meaning in itself because you believe nowhere is the centre of the Universe?
It isn't belief or disbelief in a fact, the problem is that we have not formulated a proposition.
Maybe an easier way to learn how to know how to look from a truly objective viewpoint instead of from a subjective viewpoint is to first discover or learn how the Mind and the brain actually works...


In this case, I would say it is about how it handles language. We can formulate questions like 'where is the centre of the universe?' and, because they resemble the grammar of questions like 'where are my keys?', we assume they are of the same kind.
Me: I asked you if you could give an example of 'some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'

What I understand completely objectively is 'If human beings are not open, then they will not continue learning 'what the Truth actually is', that is 'what it actually is'. What the 'it' is in 'what it actually is' IS if you are not open, then you will not learn what the 'it' IS.
That would be a sort of tautology; if you will not learn the truth then you will not learn the truth.

But like 'universe', the problem is that 'the Truth' is not itself a truth. It describes a characteristic of a fact, but it is not itself a fact, an 'it'. It has to be the truth about something.
Unless of course if you do not agree that being open is how we find truer and further knowledge and you want to argue that, 'If being, what is generally called, open-minded is not the best and easiest way to learn newer or truer knowledge', and you can do that successfully, then I will happily admit that we, you and I, can not know 'what it actually is' and that we, you and I, can not look from an objective viewpoint.
Knowledge of what? As soon as we supply a subject, then we find that this knowledge is contingent on something else being true. Being open minded does not lead to certainty, but an awareness of this contingency.
Me: Suppose you did give an example of 'what actually is'. How would you know that it was really objective knowledge, and not that you had simply closed your mind to any new knowledge?

I will provide this example of 'what actually is', 'Being open, I think, is the best way to discover or learn True knowledge'. How do I know that this example is really objective knowledge IS because I think everyone could and would agree with it AND because I used the words 'I think' in the example, which by definition means I do NOT believe it is true knowledge, I only think it is true knowledge. If I only think it is true, then I am therefore also remaining completely open to a further or newer Truth. Thus, I am simply NOT closed to any new knowledge.
Again, 'Knowledge' is not itself an example of knowledge, any more than 'number' is itself a number.
Me: We cannot stand outside our own heads to determine this (that our knowledge is objective)

Do you believe this?

Just maybe we can, with know-HOW. You will have to wait and see if it is true or not.
No, we can't, not because we lack the know how but because the intention would be self-contradictory.

Consider how you express the contrary view; if the action involves us, as in; 'we can', and we will 'see', then we would still be inside our own heads. So we cannot even formulate the thought of what it would be like to not be ourselves, let alone believe it.

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:02 pm

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote:
You said, "... from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre." Therefore, you already know from an objective viewpoint that 'what it actually is' IS nowhere is the centre of the Universe. Now, if you start to believe that is true, then you are not open anymore. And, if you are not open, then you will NOT be able to discover what the real and ultimate Truth is.
I cannot be open to things which are self-contradictory, for example 'the truth is false' or 'the universe is not the universe'.
'You' can be closed to anything 'you' like. No one is making 'you' be open or closed to anything. 'You' can choose to be closed to anything but 'I' am always open to absolutely every thing.
Londoner wrote: I cannot be open to them, not because they are untrue but because there is nothing to be open to; if I say such things I have not said anything.
But you did say such things. I would suggest never saying those such things. Saying them does not help your case, based on your own logic, you obviously have not said anything. (Read it again. You actually have not said anything, meaningful.)

By the way how do you know there is nothing to be open to, if you are NOT open to it? You MUST believe "it" to not be true, if you say there is nothing to be open to, right?
Londoner wrote:The problem with 'the centre' is that it is incomplete.
Are you absolutely sure? Do you know everything, or enough already, about the Universe to be absolutely sure that 'the center' is incomplete?

Are you suggesting that even if well known scientists are starting to say that the centre of the universe is right under our noses, you will not even listen to that, because to you "it" is incomplete?

How would you know something is incomplete if you do NOT listen to absolutely any and every thing? That includes listening forever more. For example human beings still believe in the things that they because they will not listen to anything contrary.

Do you actually know what you meant when you said this sentence? If so, then what exactly do you mean?

What exactly is 'the problem'?
Londoner wrote: You cannot have 'the centre' on its own; it has to be linked to an object. The words 'the universe' appear to describe an object, but really stand for 'everything', and everything is not the name of an object.
To Me, 'every thing' is not the name of an object. 'Every thing' is the name for every object. But, 'everything' is the name of an object. That object being the One and only object of 'all there is' or, in an other word, Everything.

And, if 'the universe' means Everything, as in absolutely every thing, then absolutely every thing as One IS known by the name of 'the Universe'. When we put every (and) thing together as One it literally becomes (and means) Everything. Absolutely every (single) thing together, as One, IS the One (single) Everything.

So, we have 'an object', or the One object, now to link 'the centre' to this object is really also rather very easy, once you know what the 'you' and the 'I' is, and how to separate these two different things successfully. By the way 'you' would first need to be able to answer the question, "Who/what am 'I'?" before you could actually do this.

'I' will leave 'you' for now to think about that a bit more.
Londoner wrote: If we gave 'the universe' a particular meaning, like 'the solar system' then we could say what the centre was, but without that meaning we cannot answer where 'the centre' is because we have not formulated the question.
What do you mean?

To Me, the meaning given to 'the Universe' IS 'all there is' or Everything. So, we have the meaning.

Now, to answer where 'the centre' of Everything is you say we need to formulate the question, and, if anyOne really is interested, formulating questions is probably one of the most simplest of things to do for human beings. For example the formulated question could be, "Where is the center of the Universe?" Too easy, see.

The quickest, simplest, and easiest answer to that question, which some human beings like the one known as stephen hawkings are only just now starting to realize and say is, "The center of the Universe is right under our noses".

Although that is NOT truly correct, it is the closest human beings have got so far to understanding this. Human beings are so ever so slowly catching up and starting to see and understand what the ultimate Truths are, but at least some are heading in the right direction, quicker than others, that is some are remaining open, to the Truth, more than others are.
Londoner wrote:
By the way some scientists, like stephen hawking's are beginning to say that the centre of the Universe is right under our noses, which in a way does place the earth, when we are on it, at fairly close to the centre of the Universe. So, if the centre of the Universe is not in agreement then surely at least one of those differing views are coming from a subjective viewpoint. You say, nowhere is the centre of the Universe, others say different. So, how do you know from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre?
I think you may misunderstand him,
I just repeated the words that I recalled stephen hawking's said, and that, what stephen hawking is starting to understand. So, how could I have misunderstood him? What is it that you understand that allows you to come to thinking that I may have misunderstood stephen hawking?

You have every right to think that. But what led you to thinking that?

What is it exactly that I may have been misunderstanding?

Also, did you notice you did NOT answer my question at all?

Londoner wrote:but as I say, we can describe something as the centre of the universe but the answer would depend on what we understood by 'the universe'.


What do you mean by 'the universe'?
Londoner wrote: For example, since everything happens spatially relative to me, then I can say 'I am the centre of the universe', but that would not be true for you, nor would it be useful if we were doing physics.
Why would it not be true for the 'you'? Do you know where the 'I' and the 'you' are in relation to each other, and to the Universe? In fact, do you know who or what the 'I' is, and who or what the 'you' are? If you knew who or what 'I' am AND who or what 'you' are, then you would already KNOW exactly where and how 'we' are in relation to the Universe.

And, also why would it not be useful if we were doing physics?
Londoner wrote:
Did you notice that to you the center of the Universe has no meaning in itself because you believe nowhere is the centre of the Universe?
It isn't belief or disbelief in a fact, the problem is that we have not formulated a proposition.
'You' may not have formulated a proposition. But 'I' have. The reason 'I' very easily could and very easily did formulate a proposition was because I was able to KNOW the answer to the proposition, and thus had already solved the problem, prior this post.

By the way it was a belief 'you' have and which you are continuing to have, AND, 'you' are still assuming it is a fact, which shows you are still believing in it. By stating it IS fact just reinforces your own belief in 'you' and in it. If you had NOT noticed, yet.

Also, just to clear things up before we get too far ahead here, absolutely NOTHING I have said about the centre of the Universe, in my other posts, were regarding the actual issue of 'the centre of the Universe'. If you had really taken notice of what I had actually been saying in my other posts you would have understood that I was talking about being OPEN to things like 'the centre of the Universe'.

What I was saying was, "If human beings remain open to any and ALL things, like for example 'where is the centre of the Universe', then they are able to learn more and new Truths.

But 'you', like every other human being, on nearly every occasion when I talk, misinterpret what I am actually talking about. I was talking about being open, and the ability to learn from when one is open compared to when one is being closed. I used the way people look at the issue of the centre of the universe, as a reference point, to make my point. But 'you' like every human being has done in the past tries to give their view on and about the reference point. I, for One, could not really care about the reference point of where the centre of the Universe is, or, if there is one or not. All I care about here is trying to get human beings to understand that they do NOT literally know everything, and so instead they would be much better off by being and remaining completely open always, to absolutely every thing, including to what the One and only Everything, actually IS.

What I HAVE BEEN talking about is NOT where the center of the Universe is, or whether there is one or not, but HOW people look at this or ANY issue. 'You', for one, certainly showed that you are completely closed on this issue. This closedness showed through clearly by your complete misunderstanding of what I was saying and getting at.

And, by the way, this closed perspective of things you have has certainly come across very clear here. Your closed way of looking at things caused you to completely miss the point I was making, which has also proved, the very point I was making. That is it is always better to remain open than closed. If and when you want to find, discover, learn, see and understand the Truth, then remain open.

Either your closed way of looking at things, or my inability to articulate properly, or partly both that has caused the misunderstanding of 'what it actually is' that I have really been wanting and trying to express feels very frustrating. I never have and I never will blame anything else for my lack of ability to communicate succinctly, but just sometimes, or maybe all times if I am to be totally honest, there is such a frustration in trying to express the very obvious things that I see, which human beings do, but they ultimately miss them completely when I am actually trying to express and explain what they actually are.

Londoner
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Londoner » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:54 pm

ken wrote:
'You' can be closed to anything 'you' like. No one is making 'you' be open or closed to anything. 'You' can choose to be closed to anything but 'I' am always open to absolutely every thing.
But one thing excludes another; I cannot be open to the notion that the sun orbits the earth, while also being open to the notion the earth orbits the sun.

I could say that I was 'open to everything' in the sense that my beliefs were arbitrary. That I tossed a coin to decide which version of astronomy I would believe at any given moment. But then, I would only be 'open' as long as the coin was spinning. If ever it landed and I was committed, then one view would have closed off the other.

Or I could refuse both versions, saying that I would never commit because it is impossible to know anything. But in that case I would not say I was open to everything; if I deny that I can know anything, then I would characterise that as being closed to everything; closed to the possibility of knowledge.
But you did say such things. I would suggest never saying those such things. Saying them does not help your case, based on your own logic, you obviously have not said anything. (Read it again. You actually have not said anything, meaningful.)
I think it is you that has misunderstood. I am saying that if I believed two contradictory things ('the sun orbits the earth', and 'the earth orbits the sun') then I do not believe either. We can tell this, because if somebody asked me 'which orbits which? I could not answer them.
Londoner wrote:Me: The problem with 'the centre' is that it is incomplete.

Are you absolutely sure? Do you know everything, or enough already, about the Universe to be absolutely sure that 'the center' is incomplete?...Are you suggesting that even if well known scientists are starting to say that the centre of the universe is right under our noses, you will not even listen to that, because to you "it" is incomplete?
Again, you misunderstand. I put 'the centre' in quotes because I am talking about the word, not a fact about the universe.

Suppose I asked you 'What is the length?' You cannot answer that question because it is incomplete, you need to know what it refers to; 'the length' is not itself a length.
Me: You cannot have 'the centre' on its own; it has to be linked to an object. The words 'the universe' appear to describe an object, but really stand for 'everything', and everything is not the name of an object.

To Me, 'every thing' is not the name of an object. 'Every thing' is the name for every object. But, 'everything' is the name of an object. That object being the One and only object of 'all there is' or, in an other word, Everything....

And, if 'the universe' means Everything, as in absolutely every thing, then absolutely every thing as One IS known by the name of 'the Universe'. When we put every (and) thing together as One it literally becomes (and means) Everything. Absolutely every (single) thing together, as One, IS the One (single) Everything...
So by 'universe' you mean 'Everything'? As distinct from 'every object'? Because the two are different, in fact they are contradictory.

If there are such things as objects, there must be some way of differentiating between them. For example they are separated in time and space. But in that case, there is no single 'Everything', rather just a collection of different things.

But if there is only 'Everything', the 'One', then you cannot argue that there can be a 'centre' because a centre is a point in space, and you do not believe in space (because if you did then that space would differentiate individual things).
So, we have 'an object', or the One object, now to link 'the centre' to this object is really also rather very easy, once you know what the 'you' and the 'I' is, and how to separate these two different things successfully. By the way 'you' would first need to be able to answer the question, "Who/what am 'I'?" before you could actually do this.

'I' will leave 'you' for now to think about that a bit more.
I have thought about such questions while reading Kant and Schopenhauer, who got there long before either of us.
I just repeated the words that I recalled stephen hawking's said, ("The center of the Universe is right under our noses") and that, what stephen hawking is starting to understand. So, how could I have misunderstood him? What is it that you understand that allows you to come to thinking that I may have misunderstood stephen hawking?

You have every right to think that. But what led you to thinking that?

What is it exactly that I may have been misunderstanding?

Also, did you notice you did NOT answer my question at all?
Hawking put a sign on his desk: Yes, I AM The Centre Of The Universe." which suggests he did not mean it in the sense you suggest!

Presumably this is about 'geocentrism', the notion that the earth is at the centre of 'Everything'? Well, it is absolutely true that we can never rule out that possibility, but only in the sense that we can never rule out any theory. I can argue that the planets orbit the earth; I will have to give them very peculiar shaped orbits, and make other adjustments, but by doing so I can make observations conform to my theory. Similarly I can argue that there are no natural laws, that every single event is willed by God. There is no possible observation that can disprove that theory. But if we take that view, then we are back with being 'open' in the sense that (since certainty is not available) we can know nothing.
'You' may not have formulated a proposition. But 'I' have. The reason 'I' very easily could and very easily did formulate a proposition was because I was able to KNOW the answer to the proposition, and thus had already solved the problem, prior this post.
Then you haven't formulated a proposition! A proposition can either be true or false, if you 'know' which it is, then it isn't a proposition.

Besides, if you have solved the problem, that means you aren't 'open' to alternatives. Thus we are back to the paradox about being 'open' with which we started.
Either your closed way of looking at things, or my inability to articulate properly, or partly both that has caused the misunderstanding of 'what it actually is' that I have really been wanting and trying to express feels very frustrating. I never have and I never will blame anything else for my lack of ability to communicate succinctly, but just sometimes, or maybe all times if I am to be totally honest, there is such a frustration in trying to express the very obvious things that I see, which human beings do, but they ultimately miss them completely when I am actually trying to express and explain what they actually are.
Well, don't forget you have chosen to post your ideas in the 'philosophy of language' section of a philosophy board! This is the place where we tend to nit-pick weaknesses in the actual words used, rather than try to reach out in a sympathetic way to the ideas behind your words.

I hope you will get something from my comments; how else can we learn to become better communicators except by recognising areas where we might not be communicating successfully? And remember that although philosophers can easily to find faults in other people's arguments, that is only because they are not usually attempting to offer anything positive themselves!

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:51 pm

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote:
'You' can be closed to anything 'you' like. No one is making 'you' be open or closed to anything. 'You' can choose to be closed to anything but 'I' am always open to absolutely every thing.
But one thing excludes another; I cannot be open to the notion that the sun orbits the earth, while also being open to the notion the earth orbits the sun.
Why NOT?

And please if you feel capable just answer the questions.

I can and I am open to absolutely EVERY thing, which includes both of these.
Londoner wrote:I could say that I was 'open to everything' in the sense that my beliefs were arbitrary.
Please explain how it is possible that you can be open and have beliefs at the same time?

Also, and obviously, ALL beliefs ARE arbitrary.

Londoner wrote: That I tossed a coin to decide which version of astronomy I would believe at any given moment.
Why would any human being does such a thing? What purpose would it fulfill or what problem would it solve.
Londoner wrote: But then, I would only be 'open' as long as the coin was spinning. If ever it landed and I was committed, then one view would have closed off the other.
If that is what YOU chose to do, then so be it. No one is telling you what you have to do.

I have only been trying to get you to see that you can be completely open to every thing, but it appears from your responses you believe that this is impossible, am I right?
Londoner wrote:Or I could refuse both versions, saying that I would never commit because it is impossible to know anything.
I have to question again why would you do that? Seems a rather very foolish thing to do, to Me.

To you, is it possible to know something or is it not possible?
Londoner wrote: But in that case I would not say I was open to everything; if I deny that I can know anything, then I would characterise that as being closed to everything; closed to the possibility of knowledge.
Talk about contradictions.

You know what would help you tremendously. STOP assuming what I am saying and meaning AND INSTEAD just ask Me clarifying questions, just like what I am doing to you. I just wish you would answer my questions so that I can understand what it is that you are trying to say here. The only thing I can see you trying to do is disagree with everything that I say. But making up your own assumptions, and then answering them yourself, you are not actually accomplishing anything.

Every time I am trying to clarify what it is that you are trying to lead to and you do not answer, but make further assumptions about what it is that you think I am saying, you are only showing what you are doing. You are not actually saying anything here.

Can you please explain what it is that you are trying to say here?
Londoner wrote:
But you did say such things. I would suggest never saying those such things. Saying them does not help your case, based on your own logic, you obviously have not said anything. (Read it again. You actually have not said anything, meaningful.)
I think it is you that has misunderstood.
But I NEVER said you misunderstood anything. I said, ", you obviously have not said anything".
Londoner wrote: I am saying that if I believed two contradictory things ('the sun orbits the earth', and 'the earth orbits the sun') then I do not believe either. We can tell this, because if somebody asked me 'which orbits which? I could not answer them.
How in hell could you and did you get to using the word 'believed', when I have all along been saying to not believe anything is to stay open. Believing one thing and then saying you are open to the same thing is absolutely contradictory. To believe 'the sun orbits the earth', and 'the earth orbits the sun' is just plain stupid. To say 'that' is just rather foolish. Whereas, to be open and remain open to either is really a rather intelligent thing to do.

Are you absolutely and 100% sure what the Truth is here? If not, then I suggest to remain open.

However, if you are absolutely and 100% sure what the Truth is, then what is "It", AND, how do you KNOW this?
Londoner wrote:Me: The problem with 'the centre' is that it is incomplete.
ken wrote:Are you absolutely sure? Do you know everything, or enough already, about the Universe to be absolutely sure that 'the center' is incomplete?...Are you suggesting that even if well known scientists are starting to say that the centre of the universe is right under our noses, you will not even listen to that, because to you "it" is incomplete?
Londoner wrote:Again, you misunderstand. I put 'the centre' in quotes because I am talking about the word, not a fact about the universe.

Suppose I asked you 'What is the length?' You cannot answer that question because it is incomplete, you need to know what it refers to; 'the length' is not itself a length.
Obviously.

Suppose I asked you 'what is the height?'. You can not answer that question because it is incomplete, you need to know what it refers to; 'the height' is not itself a height.

The VERY reason I supplied an object that WE could link the centre to, WAS because of the ridiculousness of what you said before about 'the centre' not being complete.

Londoner wrote:So by 'universe' you mean 'Everything'? As distinct from 'every object'? Because the two are different, in fact they are contradictory.
I really wish you would stop just assuming what you think I am saying and instead asked Me what I am saying. The reason you do not do this should be becoming more and more to others by now. If you did that, then you would not be able to do what you have been trying to do, that is trying to put words into my writing. You are so totally wrong, and your confusing assumptions are totally twisting what I have really said. You really are trying so hard to twist and turn what I am actually saying but you have not yet been successful.

If we add up absolutely every thing, what is the sum of ALL of those (every) things? To Me, it is 'all there is', which was once the definition for the 'Universe'. It could be said that if we add up 'every' and 'thing' then we get 'Everything'.
Londoner wrote:If there are such things as objects, there must be some way of differentiating between them. For example they are separated in time and space. But in that case, there is no single 'Everything', rather just a collection of different things.
Can you seriously NOT see and NOT understand what I have been saying. Every thing together as One is Everything. This is so simple surely you can see this by now?
Londoner wrote:But if there is only 'Everything', the 'One', then you cannot argue that there can be a 'centre' because a centre is a point in space, and you do not believe in space (because if you did then that space would differentiate individual things).
You are so clumsily TRYING to twist what I have said that this is becoming hilarious.

You are now trying to say that I do not believe something. Your beliefs are so strong that you really can NOT see what I write here. I said I am open to absolutely every thing, therefore I can NOT believe nor disbelieve anything. Do you understand that now?

Also, I have NEVER argued for nor against the centre of the Univers, and I probably never will. I have ONLY said if, and ONLY, if you remain open, then you are able to discover the Truth.
Londoner wrote:
So, we have 'an object', or the One object, now to link 'the centre' to this object is really also rather very easy, once you know what the 'you' and the 'I' is, and how to separate these two different things successfully. By the way 'you' would first need to be able to answer the question, "Who/what am 'I'?" before you could actually do this.

'I' will leave 'you' for now to think about that a bit more.
I have thought about such questions while reading Kant and Schopenhauer, who got there long before either of us.
Well I would have thought that the human beings who asked questions prior to other human beings would OBVIOUSLY got there before.

OBVIOUSLY you have AGAIN missed what I actually wrote. I said you would need to be able to ANSWER the question. I NEVER said nor suggested anything about just having a thought about that question. If you and/or those two other human beings have not yet ANSWERED the question, then you might discover that 'I' actually have ANSWERED the question before.
Londoner wrote:
I just repeated the words that I recalled stephen hawking's said, ("The center of the Universe is right under our noses") and that, what stephen hawking is starting to understand. So, how could I have misunderstood him? What is it that you understand that allows you to come to thinking that I may have misunderstood stephen hawking?

You have every right to think that. But what led you to thinking that?

What is it exactly that I may have been misunderstanding?

Also, did you notice you did NOT answer my question at all?
Hawking put a sign on his desk: Yes, I AM The Centre Of The Universe." which suggests he did not mean it in the sense you suggest!
What sense did you THINK I meant?

In what sense exactly did I suggest? And, in what sense exactly did hawking mean?

Just remember whatever answers you give, they are just your assumptions.

Also, why do you NOT answer ANY of my questions?
Londoner wrote:Presumably this is about 'geocentrism', the notion that the earth is at the centre of 'Everything'?
WHY would you make that presumption?

If you were referring to hawking, then how would you KNOW?

If you were referring to Me, then you are totally and utterly WRONG.

Asking clarifying questions, before presuming anything, will really help you. I wonder how many times I have to repeat this before this is fully understood.
Londoner wrote: Well, it is absolutely true that we can never rule out that possibility, but only in the sense that we can never rule out any theory. I can argue that the planets orbit the earth; I will have to give them very peculiar shaped orbits, and make other adjustments, but by doing so I can make observations conform to my theory. Similarly I can argue that there are no natural laws, that every single event is willed by God. There is no possible observation that can disprove that theory.
Are you absolutely and 100% sure of this?

I know a possible observation that may well disprove and/or prove ALL and EVERY theory, that is an observation made from a truly objective viewpoint. I have already explained to you what that is, but let me guess, you can not recall what that is, and allow me to make a further guess, you are unable to find that in what I have said, within this post?
Londoner wrote: But if we take that view, then we are back with being 'open' in the sense that (since certainty is not available) we can know nothing.
Who said, "certainty is not available"? I certainly NEVER said that.

Also, there is at least one thing that I KNOW of that we can know, for sure and with certainty.

Is there anything that you can know, for sure and with certainty?
Londoner wrote:
'You' may not have formulated a proposition. But 'I' have. The reason 'I' very easily could and very easily did formulate a proposition was because I was able to KNOW the answer to the proposition, and thus had already solved the problem, prior this post.
Then you haven't formulated a proposition! A proposition can either be true or false, if you 'know' which it is, then it isn't a proposition.
It may well not be a proposition to Me, but if I propose it to you, then it is in fact still a proposition.

If I propose a question to you and you unable to answer it, then the proposition remains, and thus the problem also remains unsolved.

Just because I KNOW answers that does not mean you know them, yet.
Londoner wrote:Besides, if you have solved the problem, that means you aren't 'open' to alternatives.
How do you propose I am not open to alternatives. I said I am open to absolutely everything so that MEANS I am open to absolutely everything, which obviously includes ALL alternatives. However, just so you are clear on this, alternatives have to be given FIRST.
Londoner wrote: Thus we are back to the paradox about being 'open' with which we started.
Where is and what is the paradox, to you?

There may have been some thing/s absurd to you, but there certainly was not to Me.
Londoner wrote:
Either your closed way of looking at things, or my inability to articulate properly, or partly both that has caused the misunderstanding of 'what it actually is' that I have really been wanting and trying to express feels very frustrating. I never have and I never will blame anything else for my lack of ability to communicate succinctly, but just sometimes, or maybe all times if I am to be totally honest, there is such a frustration in trying to express the very obvious things that I see, which human beings do, but they ultimately miss them completely when I am actually trying to express and explain what they actually are.
Well, don't forget you have chosen to post your ideas in the 'philosophy of language' section of a philosophy board! This is the place where we tend to nit-pick weaknesses in the actual words used, rather than try to reach out in a sympathetic way to the ideas behind your words.
I just wish you would point out a weakness. So far, the only things you have pointed out are your own weaknesses, which are:
1. Making assumptions and presuming things.
2. Trying to twist my words around to suit your agenda.
3. Not asking any clarifying questions.
4. Not remaining open, which if you did wholeheartedly, then you would not have nor shown any of your weaknesses what so ever.
Londoner wrote:I hope you will get something from my comments; how else can we learn to become better communicators except by recognising areas where we might not be communicating successfully?
I have ALREADY recognized and expressed my inabilities of communicating successfully, that is I never learned how to communicate successfully previously.

By the way, what I am actually getting from your comments is all the evidence I need to prove what it is that I am actually trying to say and prove. Thank you for this.
Londoner wrote: And remember that although philosophers can easily to find faults in other people's arguments,
Of which you have not done so far.
Londoner wrote: that is only because they are not usually attempting to offer anything positive themselves!
Great advice to remember.

I have already offered, on a few occasions, what is positive that I am sure would help 'you'.

Londoner
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Londoner » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:43 pm

ken wrote:
And please if you feel capable just answer the questions.
It is a bit tiresome to be subject to an interrogation. An exchange is better.

It is also better if you try to read my whole post, rather than just responding to each line separately. Frequently, the answers to your questions are given in the following sentence.
Also, and obviously, ALL beliefs ARE arbitrary.
In that case, I do not think you are using the word 'belief' in the normal way.
To you, is it possible to know something or is it not possible?


I would say we can know it in a particular context. For example, if we accept the validity of scientific method, then we can say we know something if it is arrived at according to that method. But ultimately we cannot be certain of anything, in that all knowledge rests on assumptions.
You know what would help you tremendously. STOP assuming what I am saying and meaning AND INSTEAD just ask Me clarifying questions, just like what I am doing to you. I just wish you would answer my questions so that I can understand what it is that you are trying to say here. The only thing I can see you trying to do is disagree with everything that I say. But making up your own assumptions, and then answering them yourself, you are not actually accomplishing anything.
I do not think your questions are answerable, because they contain terms that are self-contradictory. I try to point this out by suggesting possible interpretations and showing how they all lead to contradictions.
How in hell could you and did you get to using the word 'believed', when I have all along been saying to not believe anything is to stay open. Believing one thing and then saying you are open to the same thing is absolutely contradictory. To believe 'the sun orbits the earth', and 'the earth orbits the sun' is just plain stupid. To say 'that' is just rather foolish. Whereas, to be open and remain open to either is really a rather intelligent thing to do.
If we prefer to embrace the certainty of ignorance, then what does the word 'intelligence' mean?

As I said before, I would not describe your approach as 'open'. It is more a sort of solipsism, a denial of the possibility of knowledge. I do find it odd that you take this line, but then quote Hawking - if no knowledge is possible then that goes for Hawking too!
Suppose I asked you 'What is the length?' You cannot answer that question because it is incomplete, you need to know what it refers to; 'the length' is not itself a length.

Obviously.

Suppose I asked you 'what is the height?'. You can not answer that question because it is incomplete, you need to know what it refers to; 'the height' is not itself a height.

The VERY reason I supplied an object that WE could link the centre to, WAS because of the ridiculousness of what you said before about 'the centre' not being complete.
No, you haven't supplied an object. 'The Universe' (meaning 'everything' or 'the one') is not the name of an object, just as 'infinity' is not a number, 'everywhere' is not a location and so on.
If we add up absolutely every thing, what is the sum of ALL of those (every) things? To Me, it is 'all there is', which was once the definition for the 'Universe'. It could be said that if we add up 'every' and 'thing' then we get 'Everything'. ...

Can you seriously NOT see and NOT understand what I have been saying. Every thing together as One is Everything. This is so simple surely you can see this by now?
No, I can't. But I cannot explain why what you are saying doesn't make sense unless I can clarify what you mean. And, since you do not see the problem I cannot explain it to you without showing the ambiguity i.e. the different ways in which what you say can be interpreted. I know you don't like that, but I have no choice.

When you write of 'things' are you thinking of objects; lumps of matter? Do you imagine them piled together in a great bundle called 'everything'?

But the problem is that now we have two bundles, one containing all the matter and another containing no matter. Where is the limit of the bundle of no matter, of emptiness?

We can get around this by saying that unoccupied space does not count as a 'thing' in that concept of everything. But in that case, if space is not a thing, then terms that reference space like 'centre' do not have any meaning.

As I suggested earlier, this isn't just me being difficult. This stuff has been chewed over by philosophers from time immemorial. It obviously comes up a lot with God, since God is supposed to both exist (be a thing), but also be 'infinite', 'universal', 'omnipresent' etc. (i.e. be an everything'). But when we try to cram them both into the same sentence, we end up with paradoxes.

I don't think there is any point in going over this stuff again, but I think you should be open to the idea that I might have a point!

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:40 am

Londoner wrote:I don't think there is any point in going over this stuff again, but I think you should be open to the idea that I might have a point!
Besides your very last point in your last post you have NOT made another point. Or at least I have not seen one, yet. I am still very open to you sharing any worthwhile points. Just because you say things do not assume you also have a point.

You may think there is no point going over this stuff again but could that be because you are NOT open to it? If you have a closed view, and nothing fits in with your view, then you will think there is no point in looking at it or going over it again. I am open so I see a huge point in going over this again, so I will start again. If you want to read it or not, then obviously that is your choice.

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote:
And please if you feel capable just answer the questions.
It is a bit tiresome to be subject to an interrogation. An exchange is better.
It may be tiresome for you for some reason, that reason only you know but I would suggest that it may be tiresome for you because you are not actually able to answer the questions. For Me I truly enjoy being questioned for clarification and feel very disappointed by the lack I receive here. I thought 'philosophy' was about the love of becoming wiser. To Me this happens best by better understanding other's point of view and where they are coming from. This can only happen by being OPEN to those views, and clarifying what they are exactly is best done by clarifying questioning.
Londoner wrote:It is also better if you try to read my whole post, rather than just responding to each line separately. Frequently, the answers to your questions are given in the following sentence.
I wrote that way purposely to show HOW my responses prove your responses are wrong, incorrect, and/or not right.
Londoner wrote:
Also, and obviously, ALL beliefs ARE arbitrary.
In that case, I do not think you are using the word 'belief' in the normal way.
That so many human beings still believe that the way that they use words is the normal way, and any other way is not the normal way, I still find extremely humorous. The way human beings can be so self-centered and so stupid at the same time never ceases to amaze and humor Me.

Any human being only has to look at two different dictionaries with differing definitions for the exact same word to understand that there is NO normal way.
Londoner wrote:
To you, is it possible to know something or is it not possible?


I would say we can know it in a particular context. For example, if we accept the validity of scientific method, then we can say we know something if it is arrived at according to that method.
To be able to accept the validity of any scientific method one would need to know the whole scientific method as well as know that absolutely every previous conclusion was absolutely true, right, and/or correct.

Londoner wrote: But ultimately we cannot be certain of anything, in that all knowledge rests on assumptions.
To Me we can be certain of one thing, that is the thoughts within the head. If the thoughts are right or not we may not know for certain, but we can know for certain the the thoughts arising within the head.
Londoner wrote:
You know what would help you tremendously. STOP assuming what I am saying and meaning AND INSTEAD just ask Me clarifying questions, just like what I am doing to you. I just wish you would answer my questions so that I can understand what it is that you are trying to say here. The only thing I can see you trying to do is disagree with everything that I say. But making up your own assumptions, and then answering them yourself, you are not actually accomplishing anything.
I do not think your questions are answerable, because they contain terms that are self-contradictory.
My questions, as far as I am aware, do NOT contain any self-contradictory terms. If you look at ALL of my questions again, then hopefully you will notice that the only self-contradictory terms are the ones that you, yourself, have be placing into and onto them. My questions are just very straight-forward, simple and easy questions to answer. You make assumptions about them, in that there is something in them that there is not, and then you believe your assumptions are right. If you do look at my questions again, and you can find that it was I who has placed self-contradictory terms in them, then you will point that out to all of us. Then, if I am given a chance to respond, then we can see if it was actually 'I' or 'you' has been putting self-contradictory terms into my writings.
Londoner wrote: I try to point this out by suggesting possible interpretations and showing how they all lead to contradictions.
But I have refuted every one and all of your suggests. Again it is your own interpretation, of what I actually do write, that is leading you to contradictions. I have already suggested that if you asked my questions to clarify what I actually mean, instead of making up your own interpretations, then that would be a far quicker, simpler, and easier way to understand what I am actually saying, as well as you not making your totally wrong assumptions and interpretations.

The only point you are making clear is that you are making wrong interpretations and assumptions, AND then believing in those wrong interpretations and assumptions.

You can look at and understand any thing from two ways;

1. The best and easiest way. Looking from a truly objective viewpoint and finding and seeing the Truth. That is done by remaining open, which if you are doing is very obvious to Me.

Or, you can look the way that all other human beings do.

2. Your way, which is the worst and hardest way. Looking only from a truly subjective viewpoint and only finding and seeing what fits in with your already gained views, truths and beliefs. That is done by being closed, which if you are doing is also very obvious to Me.
Londoner wrote:
How in hell could you and did you get to using the word 'believed', when I have all along been saying to not believe anything is to stay open. Believing one thing and then saying you are open to the same thing is absolutely contradictory. To believe 'the sun orbits the earth', and 'the earth orbits the sun' is just plain stupid. To say 'that' is just rather foolish. Whereas, to be open and remain open to either is really a rather intelligent thing to do.
If we prefer to embrace the certainty of ignorance, then what does the word 'intelligence' mean?
Finally a question asked for clarification, very refreshing, and if you notice they really are not at all that tiresome to answer, especially if you know what you are talking about. To Me, 'intelligence' means the ability to learn, understand, and reason.

What separates human beings from any other known animal is that human beings have this ability, to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any thing and every thing, whereas no other known animal has this ability.

By the way that is what the word 'intelligence' means to Me. What that word means to you may be quite different, even opposite in fact. And, allow Me to take a guess, 'your' meaning would be normal while 'mine' is not, am I right?

Also, please do not try to put onto others what you, yourself, prefer to embrace, and especially onto Me. 'You' may well prefer to embrace the certainty of ignorance, but I certainly do not.
Londoner wrote:As I said before, I would not describe your approach as 'open'.
You can describe anything you like, but backing it up with proof and evidence helps.
Londoner wrote: It is more a sort of solipsism, a denial of the possibility of knowledge.
What does the word 'solipsism' means, to you? Depending on what meaning you, yourself, give to that word, then we can and will be able to see how that affected you to perceive, and then describe, my approach as not open. There is nothing whatsoever in what you have said here that proves my approach as not open.

Have you got any actual evidence that I my approach is not open? Is there anything that I have said anywhere that could have led you to have this view, OR, is it just another assumption and belief that you would like to have, and keep?

Have I, in anything I have said, remotely shown a denial of the possibility of knowledge? Or, is that just another assumption you have, and another conclusion that you have jumped to, without asking any actual and real clarifying question to Me, so that you could back up your statement with some proof and evidence?
Londoner wrote: I do find it odd that you take this line, but then quote Hawking - if no knowledge is possible then that goes for Hawking too!
Where and when have I taken this line? You have consistently done this, that is make an assumption, jump to a conclusion, and then believe it to be true. You do this without any actual and real evidence and proof. But do not be to alarmed or concerned about it. I am used to it. All human beings do this.

I NEVER, and I mean NEVER, said hawking was right (or wrong). I just stated that scientists, and even hawking, are now starting to say some things. That is all i have stated. The reason I said this was because what hawking and a few others are now starting to see and realize is in direct opposite of what you believe is true. Who or what is right or wrong, I do NOT care.
Londoner wrote:
Suppose I asked you 'What is the length?' You cannot answer that question because it is incomplete, you need to know what it refers to; 'the length' is not itself a length.

Obviously.

Suppose I asked you 'what is the height?'. You can not answer that question because it is incomplete, you need to know what it refers to; 'the height' is not itself a height.

The VERY reason I supplied an object that WE could link the centre to, WAS because of the ridiculousness of what you said before about 'the centre' not being complete.
No, you haven't supplied an object. 'The Universe' (meaning 'everything' or 'the one') is not the name of an object, just as 'infinity' is not a number, 'everywhere' is not a location and so on.
Are you saying that 'all there is' as One unified thing is not and can not never be an object? If so, then that is fine. What you see and view is totally understandable. What is also just as understandable is that you are still seeking answers for these types of things.

By the way you insist 'the milky way' can be an object but 'the Universe' can not. Did you notice that the reason YOU gave for why the Universe can not be an object, is the exact same reason why the milky way also can not be an object? That is right, obviously you did not notice this before. But maybe and hopefully you can and will now.
Londoner wrote:
If we add up absolutely every thing, what is the sum of ALL of those (every) things? To Me, it is 'all there is', which was once the definition for the 'Universe'. It could be said that if we add up 'every' and 'thing' then we get 'Everything'. ...

Can you seriously NOT see and NOT understand what I have been saying. Every thing together as One is Everything. This is so simple surely you can see this by now?
No, I can't. But I cannot explain why what you are saying doesn't make sense unless I can clarify what you mean. And, since you do not see the problem I cannot explain it to you without showing the ambiguity i.e. the different ways in which what you say can be interpreted. I know you don't like that, but I have no choice.
Laughing out loud. You say that you can not explain why what I am saying does not make sense unless you can clarify what I mean, YET, you do NOT ask Me any for any clarity. There is again absolutely NO clarifying question asked to Me.

Of course the different way I say things can be interpreted. This principle applies for just about ALL language. You say I do not like that, two things here;
1. How do you know I do not like that?
2. You are totally wrong.

The actual thing I do not like is you assuming and concluding, of which you can not or will not back up when questioned.

You say I can not see the problem, that is fine, but can you express what the actual problem IS? If you do that, AND I then do not see it, then surely another human being should be able to see what it is that you actually mean, and thus hopefully will try to explain the so called problem to Me that you allege I can not see. I say it is you who has not seen what I am saying and expressing. This is far different from saying not being able to see a so called 'problem', and then using that as an excuse for not being able to or not even trying to explain some thing.

YOU have plenty of choices you can make, if you choose to.
Londoner wrote:When you write of 'things' are you thinking of objects; lumps of matter?
No. Why did you assume that? But I am very grateful for the clarifying question. We can at least get somewhere from this perspective.
Londoner wrote: Do you imagine them piled together in a great bundle called 'everything'?
Because the answer to your first, assumed you already had the answer, question was "No", then this second clarifying question is completely obsolete.
Londoner wrote:But the problem is that now we have two bundles, one containing all the matter and another containing no matter. Where is the limit of the bundle of no matter, of emptiness?
This question is even more obsolete and ridiculous then the second one. Hopefully you are starting to see just HOW MUCH your assuming and jumping to conclusions, prior to clarification, actually effects reality and 'what really'
Londoner wrote:We can get around this by saying that unoccupied space does not count as a 'thing' in that concept of everything. But in that case, if space is not a thing, then terms that reference space like 'centre' do not have any meaning.
Hopefully it is also becoming so clearly obvious to you, as it has always been to Me, just how your assumptions have led you to see absolutely nothing that I was trying to actually say and express. You have used up so many unnecessary words here trying to explain things that I have actually NOT even being talking about at all.

You could have saved yourself so much time and energy if you just remained open and asked for clarity. If you had done this, then you would have asked, "When you write of 'things', what are you actually thinking of? Instead you wrote, "When you write of 'things' are you thinking of objects; lumps of matter?" And, then proceeded on as if I would have answered that question with a "Yes". Now, can you see just how much your assumptions and preconceived conclusions actually affects the way you look, and thus see things. You will never discover the Truth with this way of looking, and thus seeing.
Londoner wrote:As I suggested earlier, this isn't just me being difficult.
Oh I already KNOW you are not just trying to be difficult. I already KNOW why you are doing what you are doing. I have already expressed this knowledge many times previously. I have even stated that the proof of what I have been trying to say and express is in your words and writings. So, I know you are not consciously being difficult. You are just unconsciously being difficult. That may feel frustrating to Me but do not be to concerned, if you are. I totally know and understand why you, and all human beings, are like this. This was just part of a natural evolutionary process.


Londoner wrote: This stuff has been chewed over by philosophers from time immemorial.
The stuff you have assumed I was talking may have been. But what I have actually been talking about and expressed has NOT.
Londoner wrote: It obviously comes up a lot with God, since God is supposed to both exist (be a thing), but also be 'infinite', 'universal', 'omnipresent' etc. (i.e. be an everything'). But when we try to cram them both into the same sentence, we end up with paradoxes.
You and other human beings may end up with paradoxes, but I certainly do NOT. But then again this all depends on what definition of the word 'paradox' you are giving it and/or using here. The word 'paradox' can in itself be a completely self-contradicting word, just like the word 'argue' can also.

If you do not believe this is true, then just go and look up the different definitions and meanings given to those words, just in one dictionary, and then look them up in differing dictionaries. This is certainly not something I am just making up and expressing to be true.
Londoner wrote:I don't think there is any point in going over this stuff again, but I think you should be open to the idea that I might have a point!
I think there is a point in going any and all stuff again and again, until the Truth is found or shown to others. You may think there is no point going over this stuff again but that is because you are NOT open. You have had a closed view and if anything did not fit in with that view, then you would think there was no point in looking at it or going over this stuff again, but hopefully you have changed now.

I can and will start again. That is if you want Me to. But again I suggest by just becoming and remaining completely open, and by asking for clarity from a truly open perspective, then you will understand what I am talking about as well as discovering the Truth for and by yourself.

Londoner
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Londoner » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:20 am

ken wrote: I think there is a point in going any and all stuff again and again, until the Truth is found or shown to others. You may think there is no point going over this stuff again but that is because you are NOT open. You have had a closed view and if anything did not fit in with that view, then you would think there was no point in looking at it or going over this stuff again, but hopefully you have changed now.

I can and will start again. That is if you want Me to. But again I suggest by just becoming and remaining completely open, and by asking for clarity from a truly open perspective, then you will understand what I am talking about as well as discovering the Truth for and by yourself.
You cannot be 'open', in the sense you have given of having no beliefs, but also claim to know the 'Truth'. If you say:
How in hell could you and did you get to using the word 'believed', when I have all along been saying to not believe anything is to stay open.
In that case, you do not believe that 'the Truth' (whatever it might be) is true.

Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself. There is no 'Truth'. Truth relates to propositions and since you have not framed one nobody can know what you are talking about.

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:17 pm

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote: I think there is a point in going any and all stuff again and again, until the Truth is found or shown to others. You may think there is no point going over this stuff again but that is because you are NOT open. You have had a closed view and if anything did not fit in with that view, then you would think there was no point in looking at it or going over this stuff again, but hopefully you have changed now.

I can and will start again. That is if you want Me to. But again I suggest by just becoming and remaining completely open, and by asking for clarity from a truly open perspective, then you will understand what I am talking about as well as discovering the Truth for and by yourself.
You cannot be 'open', in the sense you have given of having no beliefs, but also claim to know the 'Truth'. If you say:
Once again you have completely and utterly misinterpreted Me, misunderstood Me, misconstrued Me, and missed my point.

If a person makes no assumptions, does not believe (in) some thing, and does not disbelieve (in) some thing, then they are truly open. A truly open person knows how to discover the Truth. If I claim to know how to discover, and/or know, the Truth, then how exactly would that mean that I can not be nor remain open?

Knowing the Truth, and having beliefs are two entirely different things. Believing (in) any thing means you are NOT open. If a human being claims to know the Truth, then just means they claim to know the Truth. Either they are right or they are wrong. But I can for example claim to know the Truth but still refrain completely from believing and disbelieving (in) any thing what so ever, which is what I do do.
Londoner wrote:
How in hell could you and did you get to using the word 'believed', when I have all along been saying to not believe anything is to stay open.
In that case, you do not believe that 'the Truth' (whatever it might be) is true.
What? The speed at which you can jump to and arrive at conclusions is totally amazing. What makes your conclusions even more amazing though is how wrong they are.

I asked you a clarifying question, and yet once again you did not answer it. What you did do instead was once again make an assumption of what I was getting at, then jump to a conclusion, based on that assumption, and then believe that your own assumption and your own conclusion is true, right, and/or correct.

You could NOT be further from the Truth, even if you tried to be.

You appear to be looking at this from the APE's perspective. Looking at anything based solely on your Previous Experiences, and then making assumptions about right or wrong, to Me, is like stepping back in time. Making assumptions, based solely on Previous Experiences APE, causes a totally subjective viewpoint to be formed, and from this the only sight that can be seen is from with-in one's own personal experiences. This obviously has to create and be a backward step compared to being able to and looking from a completely objective viewpoint. The only insightful knowledge gained from a subjective perspective is what one already knows, and when what one already knows is believed to be true, then a objective viewpoint can never be formed. Only from a completely open and objective perspective or viewpoint could all real and truthful, insightful knowledge be seen and understood.

Because I remain completely open I just noticed that part of the reason you jumped to such a wrong conclusion was actually my fault, and because I am honest the main reason you jumped to the wrong conclusion was because of what I wrote. Now let us see who can notice where it is exactly where I, unintentionally, wrote the misleading words, and, let us see who knows how after my words were writing this completely wrong conclusion could have been completely avoided.
Londoner wrote:Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself.
Never said it did. That, my friends, was once again, just another example of how making assumptions can really show the Truth of what human beings can really do to themselves. I will suggest, once again, to stop making assumptions, and, just become and remain open. It is not really that hard a thing to do, is it?
Londoner wrote: There is no 'Truth'.
Once more your strongly held beliefs are shining through brightly for all of us to see.

Now this time more people are noticing just how much more clearly your assuming and believing is quite apparent and obvious. What the readers are also seeing and noticing more is just how much those beliefs you are holding onto have affected the way you look at and see thing. These beliefs are the reason you are completely and utterly closed off to, and from, the Truth.

Does anyone else see the absolute ridiculousness of this statement? Is the statement 'There is no 'Truth' true or false?

By your own logic, through your own proposition, this can not be True, nor the Truth.

Whereas my proposition was and still IS the Truth.
Londoner wrote: Truth relates to propositions and since you have not framed one nobody can know what you are talking about.
Three things here;
1. Just because you can not know what I am talking about, which once again is because of your assuming, your jumping to conclusions, and your beliefs, this in no way means that no one else can not know what I am talking about. I am pretty sure human beings WILL slowly but surely start to know what I am talking about, even if you remain never knowing. (By the way I never said human beings in this day and age will know what I am actually talking about. It may well be another few hundred years or so before human beings really start to know and understand exactly what I am talking about. But I have faith in human beings that it will be much earlier than that.)

2. Once again you have completely missed my proposition, AND, what my point has been throughout this. What makes this more ridiculous is you were the one who asked Me for clarity of a proposition. You asked Me;

"Can you give an example?

Some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'?"


3. I did give you an example therefore I actually did frame a proposition for you. I replied with something similar to;

Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.

Unfortunately, though, human beings are incapable of seeing things whilst they believe otherwise. 'You' also do, unfortunately, not see nor notice things. You did not even notice my example. Therefore, you did not even see my proposition, which was framed in the example.

Even if and when a Truth is put forth and placed directly in front of a human being who believes otherwise, then even that Truth can not be seen and recognized for 'what it actually is'. This not noticing and not seeing is what you have been doing throughout this thread, and which is evidenced within your writings. 'You' have proven this over and over again. NOW, it is here for all to clearly see and notice.

One example of this not being able to see the Truth, even when It is directly in front of you, is: If you believe so strongly and wholeheartedly, as you appear to do, that your proposition that 'There is no Truth', is True, then how could or does that make absolutely any sense at all?

As you should be well aware by now, you are completely free to answer this in absolutely any way that you like.

For your information, to the believer there is no evidence nor proof satisfactory enough to show them otherwise.

'You' can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink it, as they say.

'I' can lead you to the Truth, but I can not make you see it, as I say.

But if you are completely open, then you can and will discover the Truth, all by yourself.

Londoner
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Londoner » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:54 pm

ken wrote: Once again you have completely and utterly misinterpreted Me, misunderstood Me, misconstrued Me, and missed my point.

If a person makes no assumptions, does not believe (in) some thing, and does not disbelieve (in) some thing, then they are truly open. A truly open person knows how to discover the Truth. If I claim to know how to discover, and/or know, the Truth, then how exactly would that mean that I can not be nor remain open?
So do you know how to discover 'the Truth', but have not discovered it? In which case, how do you know, that you know how to discover it?
Knowing the Truth, and having beliefs are two entirely different things. Believing (in) any thing means you are NOT open. If a human being claims to know the Truth, then just means they claim to know the Truth. Either they are right or they are wrong. But I can for example claim to know the Truth but still refrain completely from believing and disbelieving (in) any thing what so ever, which is what I do do.
I'm still stuck on this peculiar distinction you make between claiming to know 'the Truth' yet not believing that you know 'the Truth'. If I didn't believe I knew something, I wouldn't claim I knew it. Not unless I was bluffing someone.
I asked you a clarifying question, and yet once again you did not answer it. What you did do instead was once again make an assumption of what I was getting at, then jump to a conclusion, based on that assumption, and then believe that your own assumption and your own conclusion is true, right, and/or correct.
I cannot tell what you are getting at. I try to make sense of what you write but cannot. When I think I detect a meaning you always tell me I am wrong.
You could NOT be further from the Truth, even if you tried to be.
But you are only claiming that, and presumably don't believe your own claim, so I cannot feel too bad about it.
Me: Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself.

Never said it did. That, my friends, was once again, just another example of how making assumptions can really show the Truth of what human beings can really do to themselves. I will suggest, once again, to stop making assumptions, and, just become and remain open. It is not really that hard a thing to do, is it?
It is unavoidable if you won't tell me what 'the Truth' is.
Does anyone else see the absolute ridiculousness of this statement? Is the statement 'There is no 'Truth' true or false?
No they don't. You are either saying that some thing is true, or you have an idea of some sort of metaphysical entity that has the proper name 'Truth'. You need to explain which.
Me: Truth relates to propositions and since you have not framed one nobody can know what you are talking about

Three things here;
1. Just because you can not know what I am talking about, which once again is because of your assuming, your jumping to conclusions, and your beliefs, this in no way means that no one else can not know what I am talking about. I am pretty sure human beings WILL slowly but surely start to know what I am talking about, even if you remain never knowing. (By the way I never said human beings in this day and age will know what I am actually talking about. It may well be another few hundred years or so before human beings really start to know and understand exactly what I am talking about. But I have faith in human beings that it will be much earlier than that.)
And your proposition, the thing that is true/'the Truth', and we will all one day understand being...what?
2. Once again you have completely missed my proposition, AND, what my point has been throughout this. What makes this more ridiculous is you were the one who asked Me for clarity of a proposition. You asked Me;

"Can you give an example?

Some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'?"


3. I did give you an example therefore I actually did frame a proposition for you. I replied with something similar to;

Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.
So the proposition which you claim is true, or possibly 'the Truth', is:

Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.

We could write that as 'If X then Y'. We can assume that this is true. As it happens, you give the meaning of 'Y' the name 'the Truth', but do you understand that the truth of the proposition is in the relationship of 'Y' with 'X'? That a proposition is not true because it happens to contain the words 'the Truth'?

So the truth of that proposition, and the term within that proposition ('the Truth') are two different things. So if 'remaining open' really is a means of discovering 'the Truth', then your proposition is true.

How could we test this? Only by 'remaining open' and - as a result - discovering 'the Truth'.

However...you say we can only ever 'claim' to have discovered 'the Truth'. But in that case, it is not possible to verify your proposition, so you cannot know it is true. It might instead be that 'remaining open' does not enable you to discover 'the Truth', because any 'claim' to have tested it and discovered 'the Truth' might be 'right or wrong' (as you say in the second quotation from the top).

And we are still no closer to knowing what the term 'the Truth' describes.
One example of this not being able to see the Truth, even when It is directly in front of you, is: If you believe so strongly and wholeheartedly, as you appear to do, that your proposition that 'There is no Truth', is True, then how could or does that make absolutely any sense at all?

As you should be well aware by now, you are completely free to answer this in absolutely any way that you like.
I cannot see 'the Truth' directly in front of me, unless by 'the Truth' you mean 'a computer monitor'. I did not say 'There is no Truth'. I said that truth (lower case) is always ultimately contingent. I have no idea whether Truth (upper case) exists, because I still have no idea what you mean by it. I'm not sure you do.

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:18 am

Once again I will have to show you your own personally made assumptions, which are causing you to go in a completely wrong direction, and HOW the conclusions that you are deriving from those assumptions are totally wrong. I have to waste time doing this first, before I can even begin to spend time clarifying what it is that I am explaining. But hopefully you are progressing with each and every post I make.
Londoner wrote:I have no idea whether Truth (upper case) exists, because I still have no idea what you mean by it. I'm not sure you do.
Obviously you have no idea whether Truth exists. I have explained the only way that I know of how to obtain Truth, and thus know whether It exists or not, but you refuse to even look at that way, let alone to try that way. Unless you already know of, or you discover, another way, then not until you at least try the way that I suggest you will ever know whether Truth exists or not.

Instead of just saying, "I have no idea what you mean by it [Truth (upper case)]. I'm not sure you do." can you please explain why you did not just ask Me a very simple, straight-forward, clarifying question like, "What do you mean by 'Truth'?' If you just did this, then you would discover and know exactly what I mean by Truth, as well as, you would not have to ponder whether I have an idea or not.

Can you see just how easy just asking clarifying questions is?

If you had asked something like that question, then I would have replied with something like:

Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. (I am pretty sure I have explained this to you already. But if I have not, then you now know what you could have done earlier).

Can you now see how by just asking clarifying questions, how easy clarity, knowledge, and understanding can be obtained?

I have started this post with my definition of 'Truth' clearly and boldly stated, so that you can stop whinging and complaining, and saying things like, "I do not know what you are talking about."

Unless of course you actually still do not know what I am talking about. But, then I would hope that you have finally come to realize and understand that the best thing for you to do is to just ask clarifying questions. Hopefully from now on asking for clarity and information is what you will do instead of just complaining you do not know some thing.

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote: Once again you have completely and utterly misinterpreted Me, misunderstood Me, misconstrued Me, and missed my point.

If a person makes no assumptions, does not believe (in) some thing, and does not disbelieve (in) some thing, then they are truly open. A truly open person knows how to discover the Truth. If I claim to know how to discover, and/or know, the Truth, then how exactly would that mean that I can not be nor remain open?
So do you know how to discover 'the Truth', but have not discovered it?
NO.

Why oh why do you continue to persist with making assumptions? And, why oh WHY are they so continuously WRONG?

Please STOP assuming things.

Londoner wrote: In which case, how do you know, that you know how to discover it?
AGAIN, you make an assumption, jump to the conclusion that that assumption is right, and then proceed making yourself look foolish. You are leading no where and thus you are wasting your time by continuing on. I am also wasting my time fixing up your wrong conclusions. How many times have I got to request for you to stop making assumptions, and instead just ask for clarification first. This will save us both time and energy.

Please oh please just read my quote again and see if you can notice that if you had just answered the clarifying question I asked of you, instead of assuming some thing, then we would not be in this predicament.

I ask clarifying questions with the hope that they get answered. On the very rarest of occasions that they do get answered it is very, very refreshing. If, and when, human beings really start noticing just how many clarifying questions I pose and how many of them actually are responded to I think they will be utterly surprised.

What is also truly surprising is how many times I ask nicely for human beings to just ask Me clarifying questions instead of making assumptions and how infrequently that actually occurs.

Again, please just ask for clarity BEFORE you make an assumption and jump to a conclusion. Obviously you can not know a conclusion without clarification, SO please just ask for clarification before you do anything else. But I will say you are persistent, which is much more than most human beings, they usually just give up. With your persistence, and if you really would like to know the Truth, then I know you will succeed.
Londoner wrote:
Knowing the Truth, and having beliefs are two entirely different things. Believing (in) any thing means you are NOT open. If a human being claims to know the Truth, then just means they claim to know the Truth. Either they are right or they are wrong. But I can for example claim to know the Truth but still refrain completely from believing and disbelieving (in) any thing what so ever, which is what I do do.
I'm still stuck on this peculiar distinction you make between claiming to know 'the Truth' yet not believing that you know 'the Truth'. If I didn't believe I knew something, I wouldn't claim I knew it. Not unless I was bluffing someone.
First let us just take out what you sometimes do things. If you want to bluff others, then that does NOT mean that is what I would ever do. What you are inclined to do is NOT necessarily what others would or want to do.

Now, what appears "peculiar" to you does NOT necessary make it peculiar in of itself, nor make it peculiar to others. Your own personal subjective perspective, as we are all well aware of, will not shine light on objective Truth. So, what appears peculiar to you is in no way reflective of what could well be the actual and real Truth.

If I claim to know the Truth, or know absolutely anything, then it is really rather very simple and easy to also not believe (and not disbelieve) that I know the Truth, nor know absolutely anything. In fact if would be rather foolish of Me to do other wise. For example if I say I claim to know that the sun revolves around the earth, just like so many human beings did previously, then that would have been a very foolish thing of me to do, because if I were to do that, then I would not have been open to the Truth, which just may well actually be different from what I were believing was true. Have you ever wondered before why the Truth of this took so long to come about?

Also, just as foolish a thing to do would be for Me now to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, just like so many human beings are doing nowadays, because if were to do that, then I would not be open to the Truth, which just may well actually be different from what I were believing was true. Have you ever wondered before why the Truth of Everything has taken so long to come about?

As I stated clearly before, "Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing". Therefore, I can know the Truth, which is what everything could accept and agree upon, but there is absolutely no purpose in believing (nor disbelieving) I know the Truth, for the very simple fact that I might well be wrong, AND, that by the very fact that I am believing I am not open to the Truth. Obviously if the Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing, then only AFTER every thing has provided Me with their view then I would have the clarification and clarity to know, and thus also the verification to know, for sure, if what I know is actually the Truth or it is not.

However, even after all that is done I still would not believe nor disbelieve anything because if I did, then I would stop being and remaining open. If I were to start believing absolutely anything, which obviously includes claiming to know anything, then I would not be open, and, if I am not open, then I am unable to discover and know the Truth.

So, I can very easily know some thing but also still not believe (nor disbelieve) (in) it. I would NEVER want to believe (in) anything because if I did, then I would not be open, and, if I am not open, then I am not able to others who may well show and teach Me some thing new.
Londoner wrote:
I asked you a clarifying question, and yet once again you did not answer it. What you did do instead was once again make an assumption of what I was getting at, then jump to a conclusion, based on that assumption, and then believe that your own assumption and your own conclusion is true, right, and/or correct.
I cannot tell what you are getting at.
If you can not tell what I am getting at, then surely you must know by now what the best and easiest thing to do is. That is ask for clarification through open-ended questions. Ask clarifying questions instead of making assumptions and conclusions. Tell Me I will not have to repeat this again, please.
Londoner wrote: I try to make sense of what you write but cannot.
Please tell Me, so I know for sure, that you now what to do when you can not make sense of what I write.

I NEVER said what I am saying is easy to understand. I KNOW it can very hard for human beings to take in, comprehend, and understand some thing that is really rather relatively new and that which appears, on first glance, as totally contradictory from what they have only ever known, but what I am saying is really NOT that hard at all to take in, comprehend, and understand, when people are truly open and want to change and learn. In fact understanding the Truth of Everything is so extremely easy and simple once you know-HOW.
Londoner wrote: When I think I detect a meaning you always tell me I am wrong.
I do NOT always tell you you are wrong, but I do tell you are wrong when I think you are wrong.

The hint here in your quote is when you say 'detect' a meaning. When you 'detect' a meaning, you will jump on that 'detected' or assumed meaning and stick with it, instead of just asking Me for clarification of what it is that I actually mean. I also have 'detect' countless meanings through what you have said but I refrain from making assumptions and responding from those assumptions. The very reason I ask "so many" clarifying questions is so that I do get wrong what it is that you (or others) are really meaning and trying to get at. If I make an assumption, then I could well be wrong, however, if I ask for clarification, and get and honest response, then I can not be wrong.
Londoner wrote:
You could NOT be further from the Truth, even if you tried to be.
But you are only claiming that, and presumably don't believe your own claim, so I cannot feel too bad about it.
As an adult you choose how you feel, so that is your choice.

You have to understand exactly how the word 'believed' is being used by Me and in what context to understand this fully. It appears that the way you use the word 'believed' and/or the context you use it is allowing two opposing views to be obtained.

I will put it this way, and please answer the two questions;
1. Would you believe in some thing if it were not true?
2. If what you believe were not true, then would you really want to hear it?
Londoner wrote:
Me: Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself.

Never said it did. That, my friends, was once again, just another example of how making assumptions can really show the Truth of what human beings can really do to themselves. I will suggest, once again, to stop making assumptions, and, just become and remain open. It is not really that hard a thing to do, is it?
It is unavoidable if you won't tell me what 'the Truth' is.
Please explain how if I do not tell you what the Truth is, then that means it is unavoidable for you to not be open, nor remain open?

We seem to be two completely opposing things, (which is another Truth, but some thing only to be discussed at a later date). I, in fact, do become more and more open the less human beings tell Me. I do this because I become more and more inquisitive, and when I become more inquisitive I become more open. I want to learn and discover, (what they are hiding), and the only way to learn and discover (what the Truth is) is by being and remaining open.
Londoner wrote:
Does anyone else see the absolute ridiculousness of this statement? Is the statement 'There is no 'Truth' true or false?
No they don't.
Just curious, HOW many are you referring to? HOW are you able to speak for all of those? And, HOW do you KNOW this, are you absolutely sure of your answer?

You are either saying that some thing is true, or you have an idea of some sort of metaphysical entity that has the proper name 'Truth'. You need to explain which.[/quote]

Do I really 'need' to?

Just asking nicely would have sufficed. Some thing, is the answer, for now. Because, with your views, to answer the other one we will be here for eternity.
Londoner wrote:
Me: Truth relates to propositions and since you have not framed one nobody can know what you are talking about

Three things here;
1. Just because you can not know what I am talking about, which once again is because of your assuming, your jumping to conclusions, and your beliefs, this in no way means that no one else can not know what I am talking about. I am pretty sure human beings WILL slowly but surely start to know what I am talking about, even if you remain never knowing. (By the way I never said human beings in this day and age will know what I am actually talking about. It may well be another few hundred years or so before human beings really start to know and understand exactly what I am talking about. But I have faith in human beings that it will be much earlier than that.)
And your proposition, the thing that is true/'the Truth', and we will all one day understand being...what?
Seriously do you still not know what It is?

Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself.

Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered.
Londoner wrote:
2. Once again you have completely missed my proposition, AND, what my point has been throughout this. What makes this more ridiculous is you were the one who asked Me for clarity of a proposition. You asked Me;

"Can you give an example?

Some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'?"


3. I did give you an example therefore I actually did frame a proposition for you. I replied with something similar to;

Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.
So the proposition which you claim is true, or possibly 'the Truth', is:

Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.
YES.

(By the way you told me something about to read the whole post before I respond because sometimes you have already answered my question in your next response. Is this somethinglike what you have done here and what has happened here.)
Londoner wrote:We could write that as 'If X then Y'. We can assume that this is true. As it happens, you give the meaning of 'Y' the name 'the Truth', but do you understand that the truth of the proposition is in the relationship of 'Y' with 'X'?
YES I totally, fully, and completely understand that.

There is nothing wrong so far, so let us continue.

That a proposition is not true because it happens to contain the words 'the Truth'?

I certainly do not understand this.

If, however, you instead wrote, "That a proposition is not NECESSARILY true because it happens to contain the words 'the Truth'?", then I could certainly understand that. If you added the word 'necessarily', then to Me it would make total sense.

So the truth of that proposition, and the term within that proposition ('the Truth') are two different things. So if 'remaining open' really is a means of discovering 'the Truth', then your proposition is true.
Londoner wrote:How could we test this? Only by 'remaining open' and - as a result - discovering 'the Truth'.
YES, exactly right.
Londoner wrote:However...you say we can only ever 'claim' to have discovered 'the Truth'.
I do NOT recall ever saying that. But you can refresh my, and other's, memory if you like and point us to exactly where I allegedly said that. If and when you do that, then we can look at that further. But until then let us continue.
Londoner wrote: But in that case, it is not possible to verify your proposition, so you cannot know it is true.
But, it is possible to verify my proposition, so I can know if it is true or not. In fact I already know how to discover the Truth. So, this part has already been verified, to Me. If I can do it, then any one else can do it also, then when others start becoming and remaining open, then more and more will just naturally follow. Then, the more that are doing then the more verifiable, and verified, to them this will become. When ALL are doing this, then whatever else makes up the Truth can then also be verified.

Why do you say it is not possible to verify my proposition?
Londoner wrote:It might instead be that 'remaining open' does not enable you to discover 'the Truth', because any 'claim' to have tested it and discovered 'the Truth' might be 'right or wrong' (as you say in the second quotation from the top).
I do not recall ever saying, any claim to have tested it and discovered the Truth might be right or wrong.

What I would have said and meant was something similar to, any claim may be right or wrong.
Londoner wrote:And we are still no closer to knowing what the term 'the Truth' describes.
Seriously?

Only a few lines back you wrote;
"So the proposition which you claim is true, or possibly 'the Truth', is:

Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth. "

HOW can you now say, "And we are still no closer to knowing what the term 'the Truth' describes".

The term 'the Truth' describes 'whatever thing' that is accepted and agreed upon by every thing. For example 'a thing' that allows human beings to discover new things or the Truth IS being and remaining open. I think every human being could accept and agree with this.

If there is a human being who could not agree with this, then feel free to argue that.

(Although I think I have not contradicted anything I have said here in this discussion with you with the meanings that I give words, I noticed that I have contradicted something I said a fair while back on another thread in this forum with someone else so I have changed one word here now.)

The Truth can only be obtained by looking from an objective viewpoint, which can only come by looking from Everything's perspective.
Londoner wrote:
One example of this not being able to see the Truth, even when It is directly in front of you, is: If you believe so strongly and wholeheartedly, as you appear to do, that your proposition that 'There is no Truth', is True, then how could or does that make absolutely any sense at all?

As you should be well aware by now, you are completely free to answer this in absolutely any way that you like.
I cannot see 'the Truth' directly in front of me, unless by 'the Truth' you mean 'a computer monitor'.


Is this the only assumption you made and the only conclusion you came to with the word 'see'?

Considering the word 'see' has many different definitions and can mean many different things, and considering this includes it is synonymous with understand, it is very surprising that that was the ONLY conclusion you arrived.

Imagine what would have happened if you asked Me a clarifying question instead of making an assumption and then coming to another WRONG conclusion.
Londoner wrote:I did not say 'There is no Truth'.
Did you or did you not say this, Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself. There is no 'Truth'. Truth relates to propositions and since you have not framed one nobody can know what you are talking about.

If you did, then you did say, 'There is no Truth'.

If, however, you did not say that, then you did not say 'There is no Truth'.

I only had to remain open and go back a few posts to discover the Truth.

Are you still certain you did not say 'There is no Truth'?

Londoner wrote: I said that truth (lower case) is always ultimately contingent.
Truth is always ultimately contingent upon what exactly?
Londoner wrote:I have no idea whether Truth (upper case) exists, because I still have no idea what you mean by it. I'm not sure you do.
Well, hopefully, this has all changed by now.

Londoner
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by Londoner » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:22 am

ken wrote:
Instead of just saying, "I have no idea what you mean by it [Truth (upper case)]. I'm not sure you do." can you please explain why you did not just ask Me a very simple, straight-forward, clarifying question like, "What do you mean by 'Truth'?' If you just did this, then you would discover and know exactly what I mean by Truth, as well as, you would not have to ponder whether I have an idea or not.

Can you see just how easy just asking clarifying questions is?

If you had asked something like that question, then I would have replied with something like:

Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. (I am pretty sure I have explained this to you already. But if I have not, then you now know what you could have done earlier).
So 'the Truth' is (very roughly) what you would get if you looked up 'truth' in the dictionary. When you write 'agreed on by every thing' is that a typo for 'everyone'? Because if you are saying that inanimate objects can 'accept and agree' things that would require a lot of explanation!

And do you intend to distinguish 'what is accepted and agreed' from 'what is the case'? So, that 'the Sun orbits the Earth' was 'Truth' when everyone thought it did, but now 'Truth' has become false.

And why do you give truth a capital 'T'? There will be many truths.

There are also serious problems with that 'could', which undermines the whole thing (see below).
Unless of course you actually still do not know what I am talking about. But, then I would hope that you have finally come to realize and understand that the best thing for you to do is to just ask clarifying questions. Hopefully from now on asking for clarity and information is what you will do instead of just complaining you do not know some thing.
I remain confused because earlier you gave as an example of 'the Truth':
Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.
But if 'the Truth' is 'what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing' then it would not be discovered, it would be created by the fact we agree about it. And if we all 'remained open', that is declined to come to any firm agreement, then we could never create a truth.
Now, what appears "peculiar" to you does NOT necessary make it peculiar in of itself, nor make it peculiar to others. Your own personal subjective perspective, as we are all well aware of, will not shine light on objective Truth. So, what appears peculiar to you is in no way reflective of what could well be the actual and real Truth.
If Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. then there is no 'objective truth'. To say something was 'true' would be a sociological description; that 'the Sun orbits the Earth' would be objectively true only as a fact about 'what people believe'. It would not matter whether it correctly described the movement of the planets.

And my personal subjective perspective will determine 'the Truth', since if I hold a minority opinion then there would not be universal agreement, therefore whatever we were discussing could not be 'True'. For example, on this very topic.

But then there is that 'could'. To say it 'could' be true is to say that it is possible that there might be agreement on something. In that sense, anything could be true, in that everyone might reach agreement, but equally anything might cease to be true because somebody might change their mind.
You have to understand exactly how the word 'believed' is being used by Me and in what context to understand this fully. It appears that the way you use the word 'believed' and/or the context you use it is allowing two opposing views to be obtained.

I will put it this way, and please answer the two questions;
1. Would you believe in some thing if it were not true?
2. If what you believe were not true, then would you really want to hear it?
1. I could not believe in something I knew was untrue. It would be self-contradictory.
2. It would depend on whether my ego was involved.

I hope you found that information useful.
Me: Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself.

Never said it did. That, my friends, was once again, just another example of how making assumptions can really show the Truth of what human beings can really do to themselves. I will suggest, once again, to stop making assumptions, and, just become and remain open. It is not really that hard a thing to do, is it?
OK. Now I am clear that although for some strange reason you prefer to write truth with as singular (the) and with a capital 'T', this has no significance.
Does anyone else see the absolute ridiculousness of this statement? Is the statement 'There is no 'Truth' true or false?

Me: No they don't.

Just curious, HOW many are you referring to? HOW are you able to speak for all of those? And, HOW do you KNOW this, are you absolutely sure of your answer?
I can speak for you. You are very clear that truth is not a thing in itself, it only describes the attitude people in general have (or could have) towards particular propositions. Got that. Problem solved. I understand now what you mean by 'truth', even if I feel it is rather vague and unsatisfactory.

....but then...
Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself.

Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered.
And we are back to square one.

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. 'Being and remaining open' is not a truth, let alone 'the Truth'. It contradicts your previous explanation of 'Truth'. It reintroduces 'the Truth' as being a thing in itself. In as far as this formulation has any meaning at all it is circular.

Try expressing it in symbolic logic.
Please STOP assuming things.
I keep assuming what you write makes some sort of sense, as opposed to you just being confused. I will stop doing that.

ken
Posts: 1928
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Nitty Gritty of Language

Post by ken » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:27 pm

Londoner wrote:
ken wrote:
Instead of just saying, "I have no idea what you mean by it [Truth (upper case)]. I'm not sure you do." can you please explain why you did not just ask Me a very simple, straight-forward, clarifying question like, "What do you mean by 'Truth'?' If you just did this, then you would discover and know exactly what I mean by Truth, as well as, you would not have to ponder whether I have an idea or not.

Can you see just how easy just asking clarifying questions is?

If you had asked something like that question, then I would have replied with something like:

Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. (I am pretty sure I have explained this to you already. But if I have not, then you now know what you could have done earlier).
So 'the Truth' is (very roughly) what you would get if you looked up 'truth' in the dictionary.
If that is what you believe, then so be it.

I have never looked up the word 'truth' in the dictionary but I hope it would be very similar to what is written there.
Londoner wrote:When you write 'agreed on by every thing' is that a typo for 'everyone'?
No.
Londoner wrote:Because if you are saying that inanimate objects can 'accept and agree' things that would require a lot of explanation!
That is if that is what I was saying that. And that is a huge "if'.

Just trying to get you to understand what Truth is from my perspective requires way to much explaining, and we are not even there yet. To explain the rest of your sentence while you maintain the beliefs you have would require the lifetime of an infinite Universe. While a human being maintains their beliefs the Truth will NEVER be discovered by those ones.
Londoner wrote:And do you intend to distinguish 'what is accepted and agreed' from 'what is the case'?


If a human being asks Me to, then I will.

I will just imagine that you has asked Me nicely to distinguish the two. What is accepted and agreed upon by every thing could only be what is the (actual, true, and real) case.
Londoner wrote:Do you intend to distinguish 'what is accepted and agreed' from 'what is the case'?

So, that 'the Sun orbits the Earth' was 'Truth' when everyone thought it did, but now 'Truth' has become false.
That is one really weird and strange conclusion you have jumped to.

If you want to look at and delve into this, what you presume is some sort of problem or puzzle that can not be rectified, statement. Then I will do that but only if you promise to answer the clarifying questions that I ask you, and answer in a straight-forward way, without assuming anything nor jumping to any conclusions. If you promise that, then we will look into this further.
Londoner wrote:And why do you give truth a capital 'T'?
If one of the many subjective truths is accepted and agreed upon by every thing, then that truth becomes a capital T Truth, which is also the Truth that can only be found an objective viewpoint.
Londoner wrote:There will be many truths.
Of course there will be, you are living proof of this. These less than all personal accepted and agreed upon truths are just subjective truths, which obviously come only from personal subjective viewpoints.
Londoner wrote:There are also serious problems with that 'could', which undermines the whole thing (see below).
Another totally wrong and inaccurate conclusion YOU have jumped to. But this is totally understandable considering no clarification was asked for by YOU prior to this.

The brain only wants to find and see faults and nonresistance so if there are none there the brain will form them itself, and the the saddest thing of all is the brain will then believe it is right.

There are even some brains that have so fixed beliefs that they can not even see and notice what they themselves are doing. For example believe so strongly that they, themselves, know what is absolutely true, that even when that brain believes There are no truths that brain will even express that point without even realizing it is expressing it as an absolute Truth. Talk about self-contradiction.
Londoner wrote:
Unless of course you actually still do not know what I am talking about. But, then I would hope that you have finally come to realize and understand that the best thing for you to do is to just ask clarifying questions. Hopefully from now on asking for clarity and information is what you will do instead of just complaining you do not know some thing.
I remain confused because earlier you gave as an example of 'the Truth':
So, did you ask for clarification?

When I find the confusion in what human beings write, and I really want to know what they are talking about, I ask for clarity. I do this by asking clarifying questions.
Londoner wrote:
Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.
But if 'the Truth' is 'what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing' then it would not be discovered, it would be created by the fact we agree about it.
A totally wrong assumption again.

Think again, without making an assumption. If you are unsure about some thing, then what is the best thing and easiest thing to do? I will give you a clue, Ask a cl_r_fy___ question.
Londoner wrote: And if we all 'remained open', that is declined to come to any firm agreement, then we could never create a truth.
Your own beliefs in your own personal assumptions and your own conclusions is so laughable.

From your very first assumption you are wrong, and you have only on the rarest of occasions deviated away from that path of wrongness.

Again, like previously if you want to really delve into this, then you will have to promise you will answer my clarifying questions. Otherwise I will just have to sit here pointing out ALL of your wrong assumptions and conclusions and explain to you how you arrived at them. I am not here to explain to you what and how you do wrong. That is only for you to work out for and by yourself. I may already know the answers but just giving them to you does not help you at all.
Londoner wrote:
Now, what appears "peculiar" to you does NOT necessary make it peculiar in of itself, nor make it peculiar to others. Your own personal subjective perspective, as we are all well aware of, will not shine light on objective Truth. So, what appears peculiar to you is in no way reflective of what could well be the actual and real Truth.
If Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. then there is no 'objective truth'.
Why not?

Your perception of objective truth must be completely different than mine.

What is your definition of 'objective truth'?
Londoner wrote: To say something was 'true' would be a sociological description; that 'the Sun orbits the Earth' would be objectively true only as a fact about 'what people believe'.
HOW many times do I have to say if you believe, then you are not open, and, if you are not open, then you are not able to learn and discover?

To add the word 'believe' into your sentence completely and utterly misconstrues what I have been saying.
Londoner wrote: It would not matter whether it correctly described the movement of the planets.
Besides yourself, how many other human beings do you think would believe in something that were not correct?
Londoner wrote:And my personal subjective perspective will determine 'the Truth', since if I hold a minority opinion then there would not be universal agreement, therefore whatever we were discussing could not be 'True'.
Again, you are SO FAR from what I have been saying and explaining that I am now wondering why you are even here.

You have never tried to say nor prove what is right, you have just tried to say that I am wrong.
Londoner wrote: For example, on this very topic.
Which is?
Londoner wrote:But then there is that 'could'.
Notice the NO clarifying question. The brain just quickly made and assumption about the 'could', and then jumped to any conclusion it wanted to. There is still nothing triggering in that brain to ask for clarity before thinking it knows what is right already. Repeating old behaviors is nothing unusual for a brain. This is how they generally work.
Londoner wrote: To say it 'could' be true is to say that it is possible that there might be agreement on something.
That brain is certainly not showing any ability to be able to recognize and comprehend what is actually written in front of it.

Where is the writing that says, "it could be true"?

Again that brain has twisted and misconstrued what was actually written in order to satisfy and feed its own distorted assumptions and beliefs. The human brain is trained to look for absolutely anything that will fit in with its own already held beliefs.
Londoner wrote: In that sense, anything could be true, in that everyone might reach agreement, but equally anything might cease to be true because somebody might change their mind.
Do you really believe everyone would reach agreement on anything that could to be true? If not, then the first part of this sentence is wrong.

You are unable to clearly define 'mind', so we will disregard that word.

Only what is agreed and accepted upon is the Truth, which CAN obviously change.
Londoner wrote:
You have to understand exactly how the word 'believed' is being used by Me and in what context to understand this fully. It appears that the way you use the word 'believed' and/or the context you use it is allowing two opposing views to be obtained.

I will put it this way, and please answer the two questions;
1. Would you believe in some thing if it were not true?
2. If what you believe were not true, then would you really want to hear it?
1. I could not believe in something I knew was untrue. It would be self-contradictory.
2. It would depend on whether my ego was involved.
1. How do you know if something is true or untrue? And, I did not ask what you could not believe in. I asked would you believe in some thing if it were not true.
2. Is your ego involved? If not, then how do you separate your ego from you? If it is involved, then why?
Londoner wrote:I hope you found that information useful.
Not that much really.
Londoner wrote:
Me: Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself.

Never said it did. That, my friends, was once again, just another example of how making assumptions can really show the Truth of what human beings can really do to themselves. I will suggest, once again, to stop making assumptions, and, just become and remain open. It is not really that hard a thing to do, is it?
OK. Now I am clear that although for some strange reason you prefer to write truth with as singular (the) and with a capital 'T', this has no significance.
No significance to what exactly?
Londoner wrote:
Does anyone else see the absolute ridiculousness of this statement? Is the statement 'There is no 'Truth' true or false?

Me: No they don't.

Just curious, HOW many are you referring to? HOW are you able to speak for all of those? And, HOW do you KNOW this, are you absolutely sure of your answer?
I can speak for you.
I think that means your ego is certainly involved, correct?
Londoner wrote: You are very clear that truth is not a thing in itself, it only describes the attitude people in general have (or could have) towards particular propositions. Got that. Problem solved. I understand now what you mean by 'truth', even if I feel it is rather vague and unsatisfactory.
It may be rather vague and unsatisfactory to you. So, what do you mean by 'truth'?
Londoner wrote:....but then...
Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself.

Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered.
And we are back to square one.
My wrong doing. The second sentence should have read, "Only by being and remaining open IS, the Truth, of how the Truth is discovered.

In other words only by becoming, and then remaining, open will it be discovered that by being and remaining open this is the only true, right, and proper way to find out what is true, right, and correct in, and about, Life.

If that is not correct, then tell us all why not. If you do not know if it is correct or not, then try it. You may well be pleasantly surprised at what you discover and find.
Londoner wrote:I'm sorry, this is nonsense. 'Being and remaining open' is not a truth, let alone 'the Truth'.
If it is the truth of how to discover the Truth, and it is accepted and agreed upon by every thing, then it is the Truth.
Londoner wrote:It contradicts your previous explanation of 'Truth'. It reintroduces 'the Truth' as being a thing in itself.
I NEVER said Truth as being a thing itself, and, I NEVER said Truth is not a thing itself.

The brain inside that head is looking for and attempting anything in order for bias confirmation with its own belief that There is no truth. That brain is twisting and distorting the truth, what is the actual words that have been written. That brain is doing this by misconstruing, misinterpretation, and missing the actual things I have been saying and writing down.

Obviously if every thing is accepting and agreeing upon one thing, then that thing would be the Truth. Nothing hard at all to be able to understand and see that simple logic.
Londoner wrote: In as far as this formulation has any meaning at all it is circular.
Your own person interpretation of it is circular. Simple clarifying questions could have easily cleared your own spinning of that up.
Londoner wrote:Try expressing it in symbolic logic.
Try refuting it in symbolic logic.

I do not recall ever trying symbolic logic before.

If you can do it, then we ALL will be able to see if it "works" or not. (Not sure of the correct terminology to use here).
Londoner wrote:
Please STOP assuming things.
I keep assuming what you write makes some sort of sense, as opposed to you just being confused. I will stop doing that.
FINALLY you have listened to what I have actually been saying all along. If you stop assuming, then this will truly help you. If you stop assuming absolutely any thing and every thing, then you will see and understand exactly what I am talking about.

By the way, WHY would you assume some thing makes some sort of sense, when it is totally baffling you?

If you think I am confused, then why do you not challenge Me with clarifying questions. Just stating your own personal subjective views, assumptions and conclusions does not prove that I am confused. But, if I am unable to answer your supposed "challenging" and clarifying questions, then you could well prove that I am confused. But you have not done that so far. In fact your own wrong and mistaken assumptions and conclusions about what I actually do write is proof and evidence of who is actually confused here.

What did you say you mean by the word 'truth' again?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests